julie mugford

[S.Grant]

i'm sorry if you've already talked about this but can i ask what julie mugford's position will be if jeremy bamber has an appeal?
i've read that several people would be in danger of being charged with perjury so would this apply to her as well?

[ngb1066]

i'm sorry if you've already talked about this but can i ask what julie mugford's position will be if jeremy bamber has an appeal?
i've read that several people would be in danger of being charged with perjury so would this apply to her as well?

It is unusual in a case where a defendant succeeds on appeal for there to be perjury charges brought against those who gave evidence for the prosecution at trial.  However it is certainly possible where an appeal succeeds upon the basis of demonstrating that a witness or group of witnesses gave false (rather than mistaken) evidence at trial, with the intention of securing the conviction of an innocent man, for the DPP to consider prosecutions for perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  However the burden and standard of proof in such a case is just the same as in any criminal case so success in an appeal upon the basis of "fit up" does not automatically result in prosecutions of the police and other witnesses involved.

     

[curiousessex]

i'm sorry if you've already talked about this but can i ask what julie mugford's position will be if jeremy bamber has an appeal?
i've read that several people would be in danger of being charged with perjury so would this apply to her as well?

It is unusual in a case where a defendant succeeds on appeal for there to be perjury charges brought against those who gave evidence for the prosecution at trial.  However it is certainly possible where an appeal succeeds upon the basis of demonstrating that a witness or group of witnesses gave false (rather than mistaken) evidence at trial, with the intention of securing the conviction of an innocent man, for the DPP to consider prosecutions for perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  However the burden and standard of proof in such a case is just the same as in any criminal case so success in an appeal upon the basis of "fit up" does not automatically result in prosecutions of the police and other witnesses involved.

   

I would have thought Julie would be OK. From what I have read most of the evidence between Jeremy and Julie was he said versus she said. In parts some of it corroborates and in parts some of does not corroborate.

I am sure Julie would maintain what she said at the original trial was correct.

How does one prove otherwise?

Julie can maintain she was only repeating what Jeremy said to her in conversation. It remains a possibility that Jeremy could still have told Julie what Julie detailed to the Court that Jeremy had said and still be innocent.......

[clifford]

i'm sorry if you've already talked about this but can i ask what julie mugford's position will be if jeremy bamber has an appeal?
i've read that several people would be in danger of being charged with perjury so would this apply to her as well?

It is unusual in a case where a defendant succeeds on appeal for there to be perjury charges brought against those who gave evidence for the prosecution at trial.  However it is certainly possible where an appeal succeeds upon the basis of demonstrating that a witness or group of witnesses gave false (rather than mistaken) evidence at trial, with the intention of securing the conviction of an innocent man, for the DPP to consider prosecutions for perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  However the burden and standard of proof in such a case is just the same as in any criminal case so success in an appeal upon the basis of "fit up" does not automatically result in prosecutions of the police and other witnesses involved.

   

I would have thought Julie would be OK. From what I have read most of the evidence between Jeremy and Julie was he said versus she said. In parts some of it corroborates and in parts some of does not corroborate.

I am sure Julie would maintain what she said at the original trial was correct.

How does one prove otherwise?

Julie can maintain she was only repeating what Jeremy said to her in conversation. It remains a possibility that Jeremy could still have told Julie what Julie detailed to the Court that Jeremy had said and still be innocent.......

Am I right in thinking that JM had upwards of thirty interviews to get her story right.

[ngb1066]

i'm sorry if you've already talked about this but can i ask what julie mugford's position will be if jeremy bamber has an appeal?
i've read that several people would be in danger of being charged with perjury so would this apply to her as well?

It is unusual in a case where a defendant succeeds on appeal for there to be perjury charges brought against those who gave evidence for the prosecution at trial.  However it is certainly possible where an appeal succeeds upon the basis of demonstrating that a witness or group of witnesses gave false (rather than mistaken) evidence at trial, with the intention of securing the conviction of an innocent man, for the DPP to consider prosecutions for perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  However the burden and standard of proof in such a case is just the same as in any criminal case so success in an appeal upon the basis of "fit up" does not automatically result in prosecutions of the police and other witnesses involved.

   

I would have thought Julie would be OK. From what I have read most of the evidence between Jeremy and Julie was he said versus she said. In parts some of it corroborates and in parts some of does not corroborate.

I am sure Julie would maintain what she said at the original trial was correct.

How does one prove otherwise?

Julie can maintain she was only repeating what Jeremy said to her in conversation. It remains a possibility that Jeremy could still have told Julie what Julie detailed to the Court that Jeremy had said and still be innocent.......

I agree that in order for Julie Mugford to be prosecuted following a successful appeal by Jeremy Bamber there would have to be clear evidence that she lied in the evidence she gave at trial. A prosecution would be unlikely simply on the basis of Jeremy's word against hers.  However if some additional evidence came out, for example of collusion with family members or a new and credible witness stating that Julie Mugford admitted lying at the trial, it is possible that criminal proceedings against her could follow.  I am not able to express an opinion on the likelihood of this happening as I do not know what Material Jeremy Bamber's team may have in relation to Julie Mugford's evidence.   My impression from reading the material on the official website is that the main focus of the submissions to the CCRC relates to other evidence.

A further point which should be made is that even if following a successful appeal the DPP decided not to institute criminal proceedings against any of the prosecution witnesses Jeremy Bamber could himself institute civil proceedings against some of them.  The standard of proof required is far less than is necessary for criminal proceedings and although I have no inside track on this I strongly suspect that civil legal proceedings are likely to follow a successful appeal in this case.  I believe that there may be several people apart from Jeremy Bamber who are anxiously awaiting the outcome of the current CCRC process.

     

[curiousessex]

i'm sorry if you've already talked about this but can i ask what julie mugford's position will be if jeremy bamber has an appeal?
i've read that several people would be in danger of being charged with perjury so would this apply to her as well?

It is unusual in a case where a defendant succeeds on appeal for there to be perjury charges brought against those who gave evidence for the prosecution at trial.  However it is certainly possible where an appeal succeeds upon the basis of demonstrating that a witness or group of witnesses gave false (rather than mistaken) evidence at trial, with the intention of securing the conviction of an innocent man, for the DPP to consider prosecutions for perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  However the burden and standard of proof in such a case is just the same as in any criminal case so success in an appeal upon the basis of "fit up" does not automatically result in prosecutions of the police and other witnesses involved.

   

I would have thought Julie would be OK. From what I have read most of the evidence between Jeremy and Julie was he said versus she said. In parts some of it corroborates and in parts some of does not corroborate.

I am sure Julie would maintain what she said at the original trial was correct.

How does one prove otherwise?

Julie can maintain she was only repeating what Jeremy said to her in conversation. It remains a possibility that Jeremy could still have told Julie what Julie detailed to the Court that Jeremy had said and still be innocent.......

Am I right in thinking that JM had upwards of thirty interviews to get her story right.

I think ultimately it will all depend upon what Julie said in court. As I understand it perjury relates only to what is said in court.

[ngb1066]

i'm sorry if you've already talked about this but can i ask what julie mugford's position will be if jeremy bamber has an appeal?
i've read that several people would be in danger of being charged with perjury so would this apply to her as well?

It is unusual in a case where a defendant succeeds on appeal for there to be perjury charges brought against those who gave evidence for the prosecution at trial.  However it is certainly possible where an appeal succeeds upon the basis of demonstrating that a witness or group of witnesses gave false (rather than mistaken) evidence at trial, with the intention of securing the conviction of an innocent man, for the DPP to consider prosecutions for perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  However the burden and standard of proof in such a case is just the same as in any criminal case so success in an appeal upon the basis of "fit up" does not automatically result in prosecutions of the police and other witnesses involved.

   

I would have thought Julie would be OK. From what I have read most of the evidence between Jeremy and Julie was he said versus she said. In parts some of it corroborates and in parts some of does not corroborate.

I am sure Julie would maintain what she said at the original trial was correct.

How does one prove otherwise?

Julie can maintain she was only repeating what Jeremy said to her in conversation. It remains a possibility that Jeremy could still have told Julie what Julie detailed to the Court that Jeremy had said and still be innocent.......

Am I right in thinking that JM had upwards of thirty interviews to get her story right.

Apparently so.  This is a very unusual level of contact before trial between a prosecution witness and the police/DPP.  I have seen no explanation for this.

 

[ngb1066]

i'm sorry if you've already talked about this but can i ask what julie mugford's position will be if jeremy bamber has an appeal?
i've read that several people would be in danger of being charged with perjury so would this apply to her as well?

It is unusual in a case where a defendant succeeds on appeal for there to be perjury charges brought against those who gave evidence for the prosecution at trial.  However it is certainly possible where an appeal succeeds upon the basis of demonstrating that a witness or group of witnesses gave false (rather than mistaken) evidence at trial, with the intention of securing the conviction of an innocent man, for the DPP to consider prosecutions for perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  However the burden and standard of proof in such a case is just the same as in any criminal case so success in an appeal upon the basis of "fit up" does not automatically result in prosecutions of the police and other witnesses involved.

   

I would have thought Julie would be OK. From what I have read most of the evidence between Jeremy and Julie was he said versus she said. In parts some of it corroborates and in parts some of does not corroborate.

I am sure Julie would maintain what she said at the original trial was correct.

How does one prove otherwise?

Julie can maintain she was only repeating what Jeremy said to her in conversation. It remains a possibility that Jeremy could still have told Julie what Julie detailed to the Court that Jeremy had said and still be innocent.......

Am I right in thinking that JM had upwards of thirty interviews to get her story right.

I think ultimately it will all depend upon what Julie said in court. As I understand it perjury relates only to what is said in court.

That is the main form of perjury but it can also extend to formal witness statements made for the purpose of court proceedings. 

 

[S.Grant]

ngb1066 - if i've understood you correctly (and not with specific reference to this case) doesn't that rather undermine the
whole purpose of the whole oath when giving evidence? 
The law seems to be something of a game (not meaning any disrespect here) in that it's not absolute.  maybe i'm naive though.

[jon]

Not to be forgotten some of JM interview's were done at the same time JB was being interviewed !!

[ngb1066]

ngb1066 - if i've understood you correctly (and not with specific reference to this case) doesn't that rather undermine the
whole purpose of the whole oath when giving evidence? 
The law seems to be something of a game (not meaning any disrespect here) in that it's not absolute.  maybe i'm naive though.

I understand the point you are making and I should have expressed myself more clearly.  You are correct in saying that it is lying on oath which constitues perjury but formal witness statements made for the purpose of court proceedings contain a signed declaration by the person making the statement that is in effect an oath.  Therefore even if the witness who has lied is not called at trial, he/she could still be liable to prosecution for perjury if the witness statement contained lies. 

   

[curiousessex]

ngb1066 - if i've understood you correctly (and not with specific reference to this case) doesn't that rather undermine the
whole purpose of the whole oath when giving evidence? 
The law seems to be something of a game (not meaning any disrespect here) in that it's not absolute.  maybe i'm naive though.

You are absolutely right.... In a very crude sense it is all a game but the stakes are very high.

It all depends on how well you play the game in front of the jury within the court who ultimately decide the outcome.

Just because someone is found guilty before a court of law does not mean to say they are guilty of the offence and just because somebody may be found not guilty before a court of law does not mean to say they are innocent of the offence.

[ngb1066]

ngb1066 - if i've understood you correctly (and not with specific reference to this case) doesn't that rather undermine the
whole purpose of the whole oath when giving evidence? 
The law seems to be something of a game (not meaning any disrespect here) in that it's not absolute.  maybe i'm naive though.

You are absolutely right.... In a very crude sense it is all a game but the stakes are very high.

It all depends on how well you play the game in front of the jury within the court who ultimately decide the outcome.

Just because someone is found guilty before a court of law does not mean to say they are guilty of the offence and just because somebody may be found not guilty before a court of law does not mean to say they are innocent of the offence.

Those are fair observations.  I think in addition that most people do not realise that luck plays a significant part in the outcome of court trials.  It should not do but is does.  At the end of the day the verdict in a jury trial comes down to the opinions of 12 people (or in this case 10 people).

   

[curiousessex]

ngb1066 - if i've understood you correctly (and not with specific reference to this case) doesn't that rather undermine the
whole purpose of the whole oath when giving evidence? 
The law seems to be something of a game (not meaning any disrespect here) in that it's not absolute.  maybe i'm naive though.

You are absolutely right.... In a very crude sense it is all a game but the stakes are very high.

It all depends on how well you play the game in front of the jury within the court who ultimately decide the outcome.

Just because someone is found guilty before a court of law does not mean to say they are guilty of the offence and just because somebody may be found not guilty before a court of law does not mean to say they are innocent of the offence.

Those are fair observations.  I think in addition that most people do not realise that luck plays a significant part in the outcome of court trials.  It should not do but is does.  At the end of the day the verdict in a jury trial comes down to the opinions of 12 people (or in this case 10 people).

 

Not also forgetting we now have a CPS who effectively vet all cases before they get to court.  The chances are that if something gets to court the Crown already strongly beleives there is a very good chance of securing the conviction.

Polictically this makes sense because it potentially maintains the highest possible rates of conviction.

No Governement on their watch want to waste large amounts of public finances / resources on criminal proceedings that are lost. Politically it sends out the wrong message.

[paulg]

i'm sorry if you've already talked about this but can i ask what julie mugford's position will be if jeremy bamber has an appeal?
i've read that several people would be in danger of being charged with perjury so would this apply to her as well?

It is unusual in a case where a defendant succeeds on appeal for there to be perjury charges brought against those who gave evidence for the prosecution at trial.  However it is certainly possible where an appeal succeeds upon the basis of demonstrating that a witness or group of witnesses gave false (rather than mistaken) evidence at trial, with the intention of securing the conviction of an innocent man, for the DPP to consider prosecutions for perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  However the burden and standard of proof in such a case is just the same as in any criminal case so success in an appeal upon the basis of "fit up" does not automatically result in prosecutions of the police and other witnesses involved.

   

I would have thought Julie would be OK. From what I have read most of the evidence between Jeremy and Julie was he said versus she said. In parts some of it corroborates and in parts some of does not corroborate.

I am sure Julie would maintain what she said at the original trial was correct.

How does one prove otherwise?

Julie can maintain she was only repeating what Jeremy said to her in conversation. It remains a possibility that Jeremy could still have told Julie what Julie detailed to the Court that Jeremy had said and still be innocent.......

Am I right in thinking that JM had upwards of thirty interviews to get her story right.

Apparently so.  This is a very unusual level of contact before trial between a prosecution witness and the police/DPP.  I have seen no explanation for this.

 

Yep, all those interviews, and she still didn't name JB as the killer, useless police IMO.